Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='AdultLink']It's 100% percent more, but usually when people compare salaries, making twice as much is known as '50% more'.[/QUOTE]
Only if the people comparing both fail at math.
 
fox_news_math_fail.jpg

Is this your kind of math AdultLink? I agree, Tesla would be ashamed of you.
 
Ok. I screwed up on the salary percentage give me a damn break, I was on my way out to an anniversary dinner. Funny the lot of you only came out to ridicule, seems awfully "middle schoolish" to me. The point still stands people.

Anyways how does this graph prove rich people spend more on health insurance again FOC?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']Ok. The point still stands people.

Anyways how does this graph prove rich people spend more on health insurance again FOC?[/QUOTE]

One of the complaints against the WHO studying ranking USA 37th is that they measure "fairness" when receiving medical costs.

Cato thinks it is OK that a pizza delivery driver won't receive a heart transplant because he is poor, but the CEO of said pizza chain can get a new one because he is rich.

To a certain extent, I agree. Poor people shouldn't receive good medical care. Of course, I only agree when ceding moral high ground.

So, medical services based on the ability to pay is only OK in morally bankrupt countries.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']One of the complaints against the WHO studying ranking USA 37th is that they measure "fairness" when receiving medical costs.

Cato thinks it is OK that a pizza delivery driver won't receive a heart transplant because he is poor, but the CEO of said pizza chain can get a new one because he is rich.
.[/QUOTE]

Financial Fairness. A health system’s financial
fairness (FF) ismeasured by determining a
household’s contribution to health expenditure
as a percentage of household income
(beyond subsistence), then looking at the dispersion
of this percentage over all households.
The wider the dispersion in the percentage of
household income spent on health care, the
worse a nation will perform on the FF factor
and the overall index (other things being
equal).
In the aggregate, poor people spend a larger
percentage of income on health care than
do the rich.4 Insofar as health care is regarded
as a necessity, people can be expected to spend
a decreasing fractionof their income onhealth
care as their income increases. The same
would be true of food, except that the rich
tend to buy higher-quality food.
The FF factor is not an objective measure
of health attainment, but rather reflects a
value judgment that rich people should pay
more for health care, even if they consume
the same amount. This is a value judgment
not applied to most other goods, even those
regarded as necessities such as food and
housing.Most people understand and accept
that the poor will tend to spend a larger percentage
of their income on these items.
More importantly, the FF factor, which
accounts for one-fourth of each nation’s OA
score, necessarily makes countries that rely on
market incentives look inferior. The FF measure
rewards nations that finance health care
according to ability to pay, rather than according
to actual consumption or willingness to
pay. In most countries, a household’s tax burden​
is proportional to income, or progressive
(i.e., taxes consume an increasing share of
income as income rises). Thus, a nation’s FF
score rises when the government shoulders
more of the health spending burden, because
more of the nation’s medical expenditures are
financed according to ability to pay. In the
extreme, if the government pays for all health
care, then the distribution of the health-spending
burden is exactly the same as the distribution
of the tax burden. To use the existing
WHO rankings to justify more government
involvement in health care—such as via a single-
payer health care system—is therefore to
engage in circular reasoning because the rankings
are designed in amanner that favors greater
government involvement. If the WHO rankings
are to be used to determine whethermore
government involvement in health care promotes
better health outcomes, the FF factor
should be excluded.
The ostensible reason for including FF in
the health care performance index is to consider
the possibility of people landing in dire
financial straits because of their health needs.
It is debatable whether the potential for destitution
deserves inclusion in a strictmeasure of
health performance per se. But even if it does,
the FF factor does not actually measure exposure
to risk of impoverishment. FF is calculated
by (1) finding each household’s contribution
to health expenditure as a percentage of
household income (beyond subsistence), (2)
cubing the difference between that percentage
and the corresponding percentage for the
average household, and (3) taking the sum of
all such cubed differences.5 Consequently, the
FF factor penalizes a country for each household
that spends a larger-than-average percentage
of its income on health care. But it
also penalizes a country for each household
that spends a smaller-than-average percentage
of its income on health care.
Putmore simply, the FF penalizes a country
because some households are especially
likely to become impoverished from health
costs—but it also penalizes a country because
some households are especially unlikely to​
become impoverished from health costs.
Click to expand...
So I have a question! You are saying rich people should pay more for that heart transplant than poor people?​


 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']I am actually kind of curious as to how a guy making roughly nine dollars can justify denying care to poor people.[/QUOTE]

I make more than that, but I wont ridicule you for the math. ;)

Theres a difference in denying care for a person with cancer who needs treatment, and a person who has to pay for their check up.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I make more than that, but I wont ridicule you for the math. ;)

Theres a difference in denying care for a person with cancer who needs treatment, and a person who has to pay for their check up.[/QUOTE]


What difference would that be?
 
Yeah, that's just the thing people opposed to health care reform don't get.

They're ok with paying for cancer treatments, but not for routine check ups etc.

They don't grasp that paying for routine check ups is cheaper in the long run as you catch major things like cancer earlier when it can be treated more easily and at much lower cost.

Vs. people waiting until something is majorly wrong to go to the doctor as they lack insurance. And by that time the disease is in an advanced stage and the medical cost for treatment are through the roof and chance of survival is lower.

There's also a big difference in quality of care. In a presentation by Otis Brawley (CEO American Cancer Society) I attended last fall, he showed studies that found survival rates were higher for people with insurance diagnosed with stage 2 cancer, than for people without insurance diagnosed with stage 1 cancer. So you have a better chance of living with insurance than without even if the cancer is more advanced!
 
[quote name='Msut77']Can Knoell actually argue something rather than just JAQing off?[/QUOTE]

You need to have more faith in people. Notice I use the word "faith".
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, that's just the thing people opposed to health care reform don't get.

They're ok with paying for cancer treatments, but not for routine check ups etc.

They don't grasp that paying for routine check ups is cheaper in the long run as you catch major things like cancer earlier when it can be treated more easily and at much lower cost.

Vs. people waiting until something is majorly wrong to go to the doctor as they lack insurance. And by that time the disease is in an advanced stage and the medical cost for treatment are through the roof and chance of survival is lower.

There's also a big difference in quality of care. In a presentation by Otis Brawley (CEO American Cancer Society) I attended last fall, he showed studies that found survival rates were higher for people with insurance diagnosed with stage 2 cancer, than for people without insurance diagnosed with stage 1 cancer. So you have a better chance of living with insurance than without even if the cancer is more advanced![/QUOTE]


Again you went worst case scenario with my post. If people would take responsibility for their health, and pay for their own check ups and routine testing, then insurers would have a lot more money to focus on the major disaster areas for people such as cancer, or heart disease. The problem is everyone thinks health INSURANCE is meant to be a buy one get everything deal, in which it was never meant to be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']The problem is everyone thinks health care is meant to be a buy one get everything deal, in which it was never meant to be.[/QUOTE]

Says who?
 
[quote name='Knoell']what insurance does?[/QUOTE]

I might be in need of a knoellspeak to English dictionary, but what does insurance have to do with what you posted before?

Assuming you just didn't mean "for profit insurance companies".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Health care should be a basic right and people should get everything covered for one cost--and ideally it would be all covered by taxes with no added premiums.

But I won't go down that argument again because I have zero respect for people who disagree and hope they all get terrible diseases their insurance decides not to pay for.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Health care should be a basic right and people should get everything covered for one cost--and ideally it would be all covered by taxes with no added premiums.

But I won't go down that argument again because I have zero respect for people who disagree and hope they all get terrible diseases their insurance decides not to pay for.[/QUOTE]


Yep because this is achievable, why dont we add getting rid of poverty to the list too, I mean we should'nt have poverty and anyone who argues that there will always be that bottom rung, should get zero respect.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I might be in need of a knoellspeak to English dictionary, but what does insurance have to do with what you posted before?

Assuming you just didn't mean "for profit insurance companies".[/QUOTE]

not sure what you are going on about here, we were talking about health insurance, we are talking about health insurance, and we will be talking about health insurance so your attempt to nitpick at my wording is a fail.
 
[quote name='Knoell']not sure what you are going on about here[/quote]

I believe you.

we were talking about health insurance
Click to expand...

We?

we are talking about health insurance, and we will be talking about health insurance so your attempt to nitpick at my wording is a fail.
Click to expand...

Actually we aren't/weren't talking about just health insurance.

At least not health insurance as you seem to be thinking of, like what I described.
 
And you guys tell me I derail threads, not that this thread has much life but to go out of your way to make 2 posts about a mistype of one word that you know what I meant is ridiculous.
 
[quote name='Knoell']And you guys tell me I derail threads, not that this thread has much life but to go out of your way to make 2 posts about a mistype of one word that you know what I meant is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

What exactly did you mistype?

You are practically incoherent so no, I am not really sure what you meant.
 
[quote name='Msut77']What exactly did you mistype?

You are practically incoherent so no, I am not really sure what you meant.[/QUOTE]

I said health care, meaning health insurance, which is what everyone else was talking about, and you zoned in on the health care part, if you just reread the post it is clear I am talking about health insurance. I don't know why I responded, I knew there was a reason I had you blocked.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I said health care, meaning health insurance, which is what everyone else was
talking about[/quote]

That is your excuse?

It doesn't change anything, other countries that have health insurance that are more or less "one size fits all".

As an aside you don't get to decide what "we" were talking about.

and you zoned in on the health care part, if you just reread the post it is clear I am talking about health insurance. I don't know why I responded, I knew there was a reason I had you blocked.
Click to expand...

I zoned in on something resembling relevance that could salvaged. You say you have me blocked but obviously it is just a pretense so you can answer only when you have a stupid little irrelevancy to respond with.
 
[quote name='Msut77']That is your excuse?

It doesn't change anything, other countries that have health insurance that are more or less "one size fits all".
[/quote]

Exactly. There are countries like France, Taiwan etc. That have healthcare for all, yet many insist it cannot be done. Rather than just stating the truth that they're just dog eat dog, Everyman for themselves types opposed to the notion for ideological reasons.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Yep because this is achievable, why dont we add getting rid of poverty to the list too, I mean we should'nt have poverty and anyone who argues that there will always be that bottom rung, should get zero respect.[/QUOTE]

If everyone could afford basic human needs then we would still have a bottom rung, it would just mean that they would not be contiuously starving, sick, or homeless.

We shouldn't have poverty. Poverty is people working three part time jobs with no benefits to make ends meet, poverty is mentally ill homeless people wandering the streets, poverty is starving children - these are all things society should be striving to eliminate.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I zoned in on something resembling relevance that could salvaged. You say you have me blocked but obviously it is just a pretense so you can answer only when you have a stupid little irrelevancy to respond with.[/QUOTE]

Totally, blocking is the equivelent of putting your fingers in your ears and drowning out someone with cries of "NANANANA I CANT HEAR YOU" or "FLIIIIP FLOPPER!!"
 
[quote name='Msut77']That would mean you would reply to me more.[/QUOTE]

because you disappeared for awhile and I started clicking the show this post button when you reappeared. Think about it.
 
[quote name='camoor']If everyone could afford basic human needs then we would still have a bottom rung, it would just mean that they would not be contiuously starving, sick, or homeless.

We shouldn't have poverty. Poverty is people working three part time jobs with no benefits to make ends meet, poverty is mentally ill homeless people wandering the streets, poverty is starving children - these are all things society should be striving to eliminate.[/QUOTE]

Strive to eliminate it is one thing, but to think the government is the only one who can strive to eliminate it better than anything else is quite another.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Strive to eliminate it is one thing, but to think the government is the only one who can strive to eliminate it better than anything else is quite another.[/QUOTE]

What does that have to do with Obama's healthcare plan?
 
[quote name='camoor']What does that have to do with Obama's healthcare plan?[/QUOTE]

More than one of you have quoted foreign countries nationalized health care systems, and said that the government should take it all over. If you guys had your way is all im saying. Obamas real plan would have put the government in a much more involved role but he couldnt garner enough support, but dont worry, baby steps, baby steps.
 
[quote name='Knoell']More than one of you have quoted foreign countries nationalized health care systems, and said that the government should take it all over. If you guys had your way is all im saying. Obamas real plan would have put the government in a much more involved role but he couldnt garner enough support, but dont worry, baby steps, baby steps.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. Instead of taking Obamacare as a warning, private insurers and companies are screwing their clients and workers harder. The end result will be the government stepping in and taking away their toys.
 
I think in Obama's ideal plan, the gov't would have been the middle man. Let's face it, the private health insurance companies are the current middle man. They are rationing care right now by denying people coverage to pay for expensive procedures (thus they can't have the procedures done.)

If you want to call the gov't being a middle man and just paying for your shit 'more involved', go ahead.

People don't give a shit about their insurance company as long as their shit is paid for. They like their relationship with their doctor, which is a separate thing. Sometimes it can be related when certain doctors only accept certain insurance companies.
 
[quote name='Msut77']By "garnering support" knoell obviously means buying off (or failing to) enough elected representatives.[/QUOTE]

....yeah I guess that is what I meant. Obama couldn't get away with buying off particular states with sweeter benefits. I am sure you guys will still defend that though.

"but, but, republicans do it! so democrats can too!"
 
Personally I feel like any Senator who had to make a deal like that to vote for the bill (Ben & Bill Nelson, Lieberman, etc.) should not be re-elected.
 
[quote name='Knoell']....yeah I guess that is what I meant.[/QUOTE]

As much as any of your posts have any meaning.

Single payer or the truly needed more radical reform never even made it to the table.

It certainly wasn't because of merits and the money funneled to politicians by everyone getting rich off the status quo had a lot to do with it.
 
[quote name='Msut77']As much as any of your posts have any meaning.

Single payer or the truly needed more radical reform never even made it to the table.

It certainly wasn't because of merits and the money funneled to politicians by everyone getting rich off the status quo had a lot to do with it.[/QUOTE]

Im getting tired of this, funneling and hoarding money crap without any of your established rule of proof, proof, proof. Who exactly is getting rich off of the current system? I kind of want proof of who these rich bastards are (im guessing you mean insurance company executives) and who they are paying off or funneling money to before I commit to that being the reason radical reform never happened.

It couldn't of possibly been that Americans wouldn't stand for it, and politicians flocked from left field to center field because they got scared crapless that this may end their political career. Not to mention even the current bill just might. I guess Americans just don't know what they really want huh? ;)
 
[quote name='Knoell']Im getting tired of this,[/quote]

I imagine living in your own personal universe you have constructed entirely out of bullshit does get old eventually knoell.

funneling and hoarding money crap without any of your established rule of proof, proof, proof. Who exactly is getting rich off of the current system? I kind of want proof of who these rich bastards are (im guessing you mean insurance company executives) and who they are paying off or funneling money to before I commit to that being the reason radical reform never happened.
Click to expand...

Read this thread.

Read something.

Quit wallowing in ignorance.
 
[quote name='Knoell']as usual, no decent response.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that is always the case with you.

Tell you what knoell, since you are so goddamn lazy and I am so nice I can help you out with a little intellectual exercise so you can avoid having to strain your eyes by actually reading something.

Tell us all where you think all extra money we spend on healthcare in this country goes.

I have went over it all before and even reiterated most of it for your benefit but that is besides the point.

I want to see what you "think", whether you think it is spent on something positive or whether you even know or care at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top